U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-01-2012, 07:30 PM
 
82 posts, read 169,794 times
Reputation: 69

Advertisements

This post is AWESOME! Well said, I must say!

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
It's always hilarious to me how people always want the benefit of everything in society but don't want it in their backyard or municipality.

I grew up around US Army Aviation. I miss the sound and sight of helicopters in the air. I lived right next to some of the busiest heliports in the world with 24hr traffic. Unless you are right across the street from a heliport, you'll rarely notice.

Overall it's just not that big of a deal. With the airspace involved and numbers of helicopters, it's a minimal impact.

Today's helicopters with rigid blades like the AH-64 and UH-60 are very quiet compared to the old UH-1 Hueys with it's flexible blades that would whap whap whap the air when slowing down.

Out at Eagle Airport in Eagle Colorado near Vail, the US Army's High Altitude training site has been there for over 20 years. Nobody seems to know that or notices too much that even exists. Yet they take off and land and fly all over the Rockies all day.

I read all the links posted. It's the usual anti American, anti military surrender monkeys that would gladly support terrorists attacking the USA(we deserve it, so they say) and the usual enviroterrorists that don't want any human impact on the land for any purpose at all. No defense, no food, no energy, no shelter.

 
Old 02-01-2012, 08:54 PM
 
Location: Arlington, Va
236 posts, read 367,076 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by livinslv View Post
This post is AWESOME! Well said, I must say!
agreed... and quite reminiscent of the personality I observed in my short travels around Co. Most places where I interacted with the locals (actually every place) the topic came up of where I was from (I don't sound Canadian like the locals) I would announce I was from Wash D.C. and the first word that was thrown back at me (I stopped counting after about the 6th) was "Boulder" for some reason because of what we have in office I am instantly associated with the commies! I still can't explain though how it felt again to be a man amongst men visiting Colorado... I think I picked a good state
 
Old 02-01-2012, 09:34 PM
 
9,810 posts, read 18,072,086 times
Reputation: 7490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
A large part of the proposed cuts--the lion's share in dollar terms--will be to military acquisition programs. Colorado Springs is not home to any significant defense material production.

The AF Academy is probably safe for as long as the US has an independent Air Force. Schriever has some very expensive special facilities and an enormous specialized antenna farm that needs to be relatively near a major base but well away from an urban area due to RF interference issues. Peterson is home to multiple major military commands, including a critical command and control center for the nation's nuclear forces, so moving it would be prohibitively expensive. Carson is probably the most susceptible of the local bases, depending on how the Army distributes the loss of some 80,000 troops and even more support people, but closure of an entire major Army base in the US is unlikely as the result of a proposed 15% personnel reduction.

So...there will probably be some impact, probably (as others have already opined) from loss of one or even two brigades from Carson.

That's a real analysis from someone that doesn't need to have his opinions given to him by a half-rate Wall Street ragsheet.
I don't think there is any plan to get rid of any of the big bases, especially Ft. Carson. While the Army will lose troops, the feeling is that it is easier and quicker to train up ground troops than to build ships and planes, which is why the money is being directed in that direction.
 
Old 02-02-2012, 06:18 AM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
9,683 posts, read 9,401,483 times
Reputation: 12232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
I work in the Mannheim military community which is experiencing a huge drawdown presently, and I assure you the impact is not negligible. Local businesses (and landlords) are really feeling the loss. Granted, COS won't likely face a total withdrawal, but the presence of lot's of military/government people with money in there pockets makes a big difference in the local economy.
Most certainly. I realize that in certain areas of the city there will be immediate impacts if Fort Carson loses troops. However I am speaking of the city as a whole and over a period of 20 years. Time and scope mitigate the effects of the potential troop reassignments.
 
Old 02-02-2012, 10:16 AM
 
816 posts, read 820,584 times
Reputation: 916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
A large part of the proposed cuts--the lion's share in dollar terms--will be to military acquisition programs. Colorado Springs is not home to any significant defense material production.
I would say that the largest cut in monetary terms will be the loss of 80,000 soldiers, 20,000 marines, and several thousand civilian support personnel. The acquisition programs seem to have been largely spared asides from the C-27J which the Army will try and pick up. Once again the AF is trying to get out of the business of supporting the Army, the last ten years has been hell them as they have lost quite a bit of luster (here's a hint, if you actually fight you tend to get more respect instead of flying a goddamn drone from Creech AFB).

Quote:
The AF Academy is probably safe for as long as the US has an independent Air Force. Schriever has some very expensive special facilities and an enormous specialized antenna farm that needs to be relatively near a major base but well away from an urban area due to RF interference issues. Peterson is home to multiple major military commands, including a critical command and control center for the nation's nuclear forces, so moving it would be prohibitively expensive. Carson is probably the most susceptible of the local bases, depending on how the Army distributes the loss of some 80,000 troops and even more support people, but closure of an entire major Army base in the US is unlikely as the result of a proposed 15% personnel reduction.

So...there will probably be some impact, probably (as others have already opined) from loss of one or even two brigades from Carson.
That makes sense about Schriever and Peterson's role of hosting NORTHCOM, Space Command (both Army and AF), NORAD, gives the place a certain strategic importance. Then there's Buckley AFB that serves as the major download site for the US' orbital ISR assets. It's really amazing how much of the C^3 for space operations is located in Colorado.

There's also the defense factor with being located in a central location with plenty of forewarning of an impending attack.

I think that Fort Carson will lose one of its Heavy BCT's. With ten on the chopping block and the two Heavy BCT's in Europe slated to go away, cutting one Heavy BCT from six of the Army's divisions meets their goal of focusing the majority of the cuts on the Heavy BCT's while preserving the Stryker and Light BCT's.

Quote:
That's a real analysis from someone that doesn't need to have his opinions given to him by a half-rate Wall Street ragsheet.
Josseppie has never been about analysis, just cheerleading and booster-ism with no grounding in reality.
 
Old 02-02-2012, 10:30 AM
 
Location: state of enlightenment
2,391 posts, read 4,359,062 times
Reputation: 2428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
NIMBY Anyone?
Are you volunteering your back yard? Military bases are some of the most polluted places in this country.
 
Old 02-02-2012, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,221 posts, read 4,494,520 times
Reputation: 1674
Quote:
Originally Posted by geos View Post
Are you volunteering your back yard? Military bases are some of the most polluted places in this country.
I already have four bases in my back yard. I like those guys--I find they're a lot higher class of people than the Maddow Morons and Lefty Leeches...

FWIW, the worst polluters in the US are the tens of thousands of gas stations with leaking underground storage tanks...I'm betting you've never complained about having a gas station in your back yard!
 
Old 02-02-2012, 02:16 PM
 
8,318 posts, read 23,924,935 times
Reputation: 8974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
I already have four bases in my back yard. I like those guys--I find they're a lot higher class of people than the Maddow Morons and Lefty Leeches...
Though I usually agree with Bob on a lot of issues, on this one I do not. Two of the most contaminated sites on the entire planet were the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, both in metro Denver and both operated under contract for the US military. Their cleanup has cost the US taxpayers billions of dollars and, though remediated, neither site can ever be used again for anything much beyond a wildlife refuge.

The environmental record for the entire military has historically been pretty dismal, partly as a result of exactly what it is that the military does and partly because the military often has been exempt from environmental protection regulations that any non-military enterprise would be required to follow.

As to base or installation closures, my prediction is that Colorado Springs will a top candidate for at least one and maybe two major closures within a few years simply because of the political reality that it is easier to close a couple of bases where there are numerous installations as opposed to closing a singular base in a locale where it is the sole economic engine for a whole city or region.
 
Old 02-02-2012, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,221 posts, read 4,494,520 times
Reputation: 1674
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
Though I usually agree with Bob on a lot of issues, on this one I do not. Two of the most contaminated sites on the entire planet were the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, both in metro Denver and both operated under contract for the US military. Their cleanup has cost the US taxpayers billions of dollars and, though remediated, neither site can ever be used again for anything much beyond a wildlife refuge.
One does have to include a timeline into the discussion to understand the issue...most of DoD's worst cleanup problems were due to pollution that occurred in the 1945-1980 timeframe before events like the Love Canal incident brought industrial soil contamination into the forefront for the whole country.

The DoD of 2012 isn't the same animal as the one of 1955...just as the GM or Ford or GE of 2012 isn't the same either. The difference is that DoD is still using most of the same facilities it operated in the 50s, where US heavy industry has long since moved on or ceased operations altogether in lieu of offshore production (where in many cases there are virtually NO environmental regulations to contend with).

As late as the 1980s, if an aircraft refueling operation on a miitary ramp resulted in a 50-gal spill of JP-4, the cleanup was to use a fire truck and wash the fuel off the ramp onto the adjoining infield. Today, the same incident would trigger a hazmat response worthy of praise by the most anal-retentive tree-hugging Birkenstock-clad devoid-of-all-common-sense environmental nazi on the planet. I might add that commercial airports operated the same way in those days, and the only reason the soil underlying the ramps of most large airports isn't on the Superfund cleanup list is that they simply haven't been tested. The base closures brought about by the previous rounds of BRAC commissions forced testing of soil on closing bases...otherwise there would be no recognition of the problem there, either.

So to hold the military responsible today for pollution accumulated in an era when nobody anywhere was held responsible for pollution isn't fair at all as an metric of how they operate today. In today's DoD, if you break environmental law or cover a violation up, you risk your career and indeed your freedom...in today's corporate culture, taking that kind of risk to save the company those cleanup costs earns you a big bonus check.

No, I'd take a DoD base next door over any commercial industrial operation any day.
 
Old 02-02-2012, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
11,897 posts, read 19,068,672 times
Reputation: 3980
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post

As to base or installation closures, my prediction is that Colorado Springs will a top candidate for at least one and maybe two major closures within a few years simply because of the political reality that it is easier to close a couple of bases where there are numerous installations as opposed to closing a singular base in a locale where it is the sole economic engine for a whole city or region.
I find myself in agreement with you. Not to get to much in the national politics here but of the current deficit 75% of it is entitlements and military spending. They can not balance the budget without cutting the military and I just don't see how they can do that without closing down a base or two in Colorado Springs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2013 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top